From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luc Van Oostenryck Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] fixes for rare issues Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 22:46:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20170731203624.58971-1-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from mail-qt0-f180.google.com ([209.85.216.180]:33015 "EHLO mail-qt0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752240AbdHAUqD (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:46:03 -0400 Received: by mail-qt0-f180.google.com with SMTP id a18so16416384qta.0 for ; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:46:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Christopher Li Cc: Linux-Sparse , Michael Stefaniuc On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: >> One of the thing I haven't tested is the performance. >> Several things here can make things slower: >> - REPEAT_CFG_CLEANUP is now set after every call to rewrite_branch() >> (and will then trigger at some point a call to kill_unreachable_bbs()) >> - kill_unreachable_bbs() set REPEAT_CSE is a BB have been deleted >> (which may trigger another CSE cycle possibly not present before) >> - the bb_depends_on() change add some code with looping through >> the BB's instructions, nothing really heavy but still some more code >> to run >> All these are needed though. > > And indeed I see that some tests that took me 38s now take 48s. > I'll look tomorrow for the real cause and see what can be done there. OK. That was a false alert, I was still running with debug on. -- Luc